Unlike Lenny though I think it was Dover that was the turning point rather than Kansas (although Kansas was a heavy blow). Surely most of us was worried in the run-up to Dover? They had a (aparently) dream choice of Judge. It was only after the trial comenced that their stupidity started becoming obvious.

Nah, their stupidity was obvious at Kansas. As soon as they had some dickweed testify that teaching *mathemetics* had a religious effect, it was obvious they simply had nothing serious to offer.

Until Kansas, the press was treating ID with kid gloves. After Kansas, the press coverage was universally negative. That was the turning point.

Even had the IDers won in Dover, they would have lost the appeals. Just like the anti-evolutioners have lost every OTHER Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one.

Even had the IDers won in Dover, they would have lost the appeals. Just like the anti-evolutioners have lost every OTHER Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one.

Sure, they lose in court every time. But they soon pop back up with a new story.

--------------Fundamentalism in a nutshell:"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

ID does feel like the walking dead right now, and the "Weekend at Bernie's" analogy seems the best fit. Even if it was a bad movie.

But, the concept will stay with us. Political power shifts and as long as there is a deep pool of people that are literalists the threat of something like ID will remain.

But, permit me a baseball analogy. In the days before radar guns direct observation was the only way to judge the speed of a fastball. Many people were quoted saying that someone threw harder than Walter Johnson. Every new fire-baller was said to throw harder than Johnson. Which made Johnson the standard.

First, there was creationism. Then "scientific" creationism. Then ID, which was really the same thing. There will be something next and it will also try to be "Scientific." Which makes the scientific method the standard for judging reality. Which means ID, or the next iteration, will go down the same path and get the same results. Nothing.

I think I went to your Uncommon Descent, Bill, and asked a simple, intelligent question about your stance on Wells' HIV-AIDS link denial. What I got was a bunch of so-called men jumping on me for having the temerity of being an atheist (since age 9, people) without being a nihilist. "Prove that life has meaning." You'd think so-called Christians would at least remember the Bible verse that states that goodness does not delight in evil, but they seem bound and determined to curse the light.

The folks at Uncommon Descent are unhappy that atheists are not necessarily nihilists. Because that's "stupid," you know. And Bill is overjoyed because "we" think "they" are "morons." Well, I don't think Dembski is a moron, though I would say that he's acting like one. (It kind of reminds me of the old farts in my hometown who thought I was an "embarrassment" to my family because I was bookish girl. Never mind that I never brought boy trouble or drugs or anything like that to my parents' door.)

ID seems like a form of nihilism right now. Because I never really had any concept of "meaninglessness" until I came across this merry bunch. What a waste of energy. Frankly I think my talents can be better directed toward getting better HIV awareness out there (particularly in Africa).

And as for me and my "nihilism," I can live with myself if Bill can live with himself. And maybe we should let him do that. Frankly I couldn't care less if the guy is a doughead or not. He's a boring, selfish whiner. What he really can't live without is attention.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Apologies are therefore in order. Miller, far from blatantly misrepresenting me, was merely setting up a strawman. Way to go.

Beyond not really being an apology at all (one does not express remorse by attacking the individual owed the apology - at least not beyond the third grade), a reading of the cited testimony finds no such straw man. In fact, other than Miller's responses to a few questions posed by Muise in cross that established that he had passing familiarity with the term CSI and WAD's authorship of same, CSI and WAD receive no further mention in this exchange. Rather, Miller (in redirect) is asked about Behe's rather different notion of irreducible complexity, its significance to intelligent design, and the numerous falsifications of Behe's predictions regarding specific instances of supposed IC present in the literature.

Dembski's arguments are not addressed at all, not even in straw form. Perhaps he is feeling a bit miffed by that.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I think I went to your Uncommon Descent, Bill, and asked a simple, intelligent question about your stance on Wells' HIV-AIDS link denial. What I got was a bunch of so-called men jumping on me for having the temerity of being an atheist (since age 9, people) without being a nihilist. "Prove that life has meaning."

I know what you mean. Fundies seem to get really purturbed when atheists aren't bleak, violent, misanthropic nihilists. They have a whole view of society made entirely of cartoonish stereotypes, and when a blatant exception to their stereotypes appears, they get quite cross...

What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I think I went to your Uncommon Descent, Bill, and asked a simple, intelligent question about your stance on Wells' HIV-AIDS link denial. What I got was a bunch of so-called men jumping on me for having the temerity of being an atheist (since age 9, people) without being a nihilist. "Prove that life has meaning."

I know what you mean. Fundies seem to get really purturbed when atheists aren't bleak, violent, misanthropic nihilists. They have a whole view of society made entirely of cartoonish stereotypes, and when a blatant exception to their stereotypes appears, they get quite cross...

What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

Arden - this is the mentality that doesn't consider empathy. Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them. I can hear about some terrible thing happening to someone else and actually feel physical pain, and that's not theology or ideology, or rationality. But they think that anything pleasurable must be evil and that goodness is one long, hard march up Mount Improbable, as well as some great glass globe that can be shattered by the revelation of one (human) flaw. "How can you be good without God?" Well, I don't know, maybe when people stop thinking about themselves all the time they'll find that doing "charitable" things is a pleasure in itself and is, like life, its own meaning. And if you believe in God too, fine, like I care.

That was the theme of the film, "Jesus of Montreal," which I also suggested, at a different thread, that people at UD watch. (Did they? No, it's in Quebec French. They hate French people. In a Christian way of course, or in an agnostic-who-prefers-a-Christian-society way. I'll bet O'Leary won't even watch it.)

But whatever, it's all good. I'm sure that, come the moment when they have to act to help someone else, instead of just sitting at a computer bloviating, most of them would do the right thing too and not be the holier-than-thou, finger-waving perfectionists that they come off as. I don't deny people basic decency and humanity just because they disagree with me.

I just don't see the point about being unhappy that there isn't one more destructive nihilist out there. Man, that I do not get.

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2007,16:28)

But one wonders how he does [live with himself].

Apparently he does.

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25, 2007, 16:28)

Dembski's arguments are not addressed at all, not even in straw form. Perhaps he is feeling a bit miffed by that.

Good.

He should remember that he's alive to be miffed, unlike a lot of people. He's in America, and miffed. He's in good health, and miffed. His life is what he makes of it, and mine is what I make of mine.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them.

I think the response to this would be that since you can't prove that empathy evolved, or explain exactly how chemical reactions in the brain produce it it is not material and therefore as an atheist you are a hypocrite.

Arden - this is the mentality that doesn't consider empathy. Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them. I can hear about some terrible thing happening to someone else and actually feel physical pain, and that's not theology or ideology, or rationality. But they think that anything pleasurable must be evil and that goodness is one long, hard march up Mount Improbable, as well as some great glass globe that can be shattered by the revelation of one (human) flaw. "How can you be good without God?"

Precisely. It seems to be an attitude that simply omits the whole concept of empathy. I think most of the people peddling this idea are perfectly capable of empathy, it's just that they've developed a whole world view that never seems to mention it. So the idea of it makes no sense to them, or they're simply incapable of seeing how empathy could possibly exist in the absence of Captain Invisible's hidden retribution.

However, I have every so often seen fundies literally saying that if not for fear of cosmic punishment, they'd be completely amoral, and wouldn't worry about killing or robbing anyone. It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them.

Quote

I think the response to this would be that since you can't prove that empathy evolved, or explain exactly how chemical reactions in the brain produce it it is not material and therefore as an atheist you are a hypocrite.

That's exactly what many of them say. It speaks volumes that they'd apparently be much happier if all atheists were amoral monsters.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them.

I think the response to this would be that since you can't prove that empathy evolved, or explain exactly how chemical reactions in the brain produce it it is not material and therefore as an atheist you are a hypocrite.

Well, they can sue me.

I'm suddenly reminded of a quote about hypocrisy from Oscar Wilde, who said not to portray yourself as dangerous and wild in public but in reality be domestic and a goody two-shoes in private!

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

However, I have every so often seen fundies literally saying that if not for fear of cosmic punishment, they'd be completely amoral, and wouldn't worry about killing or robbing anyone. It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them... It speaks volumes that they'd apparently be much happier if all atheists were amoral monsters.

Fundamentalists tend to believe that humans were utterly corrupted by the Fall, and that salvation is only possible through divine grace. They actually use the phrase "total depravity" to describe mankind's state after the Fall. While this doesn't mean that the unsaved are absolutely as bad as possible, it does mean that everything they undertake is sin-riddled and fundamentally corrupt. Even the moral good they attempt is misguided and falsely motivated.

Quote

It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them.

If everyone is rotten to the core, there's no particular shame in admitting that you would go on an immoral rampage without a Divine Enforcer to stop you.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

IIRC, the defense's motion to exclude testimony from plaintiffs's rebuttal witness Jeffrey Shallit was deferred. The plaintiffs's legal team noted that since Dembski himself had been withdrawn as a witness, they had no pressing need to bring in Shallit, but if the defense leaned heavily on Dembski's ideas during the trial, they would bring up the issue at that point. Through the trial, you see occasional references to Dembski, but no big deal is made of his stuff... I think the defense wanted to bring in some part of Dembski's ideas, but not so much that they opened the door to having Jeff Shallit entered as a witness to rebut them.

The fact that the biggest antievolution trial in decades failed to spotlight his ideas must be terrifically galling to Dembski. The $22,000 or so he got from TMLC, though, may have helped him cope with the disappointment.

[789]MR. BOYLE: What we would do, Your Honor, is we would retain William Dembski and Dr. Campbell as experts in this case.

[790]THE COURT: Well, and Mr. Dembski would then reappear in the litigation. And Mr. Buell just said that if Mr. Dembski's manuscript -- if their manuscript is dragged back into the mix, that he would rather go to jail than reveal that. So where does that get me if Mr. Dembski comes back in?

[791]MR. BOYLE: Well, in terms of the production of the document, I don't know that there's been a ruling on that or the relevance of that has been determined.

[792]THE COURT: Well, when you put it in an expert report and you name that as the basis for your expert report, then you have a problem if you don't want to produce it.

And later, in Barbara Forrest's testimony, Dembski gets quoted on the content of ID:

Quote

[452]Q. Matt, could you go to the cover page of the article by Dr. Dembski and highlight the title? Could you read that?

[453]A. The title of Dr. Dembski's article is Signs of Intelligence, A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design.

[454]Q. Matt, could you highlight the last paragraph of the article? Could you read that into the record?

[455]A. This is the last paragraph. Quote, The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality.

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory, end quote.

[456]Q. So like Mr. Johnson, William Dembski locates intelligent design in the Bible in the Book of John?

[457]A. He specifically locates it. He defines it as beginning with the Book of John.

[458]Q. And can you tell us how the Book of John begins?

[459]A. In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God.

[460]MR. ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

TMLC at various points asked plaintiffs's experts about Dembski's "The Design Inference" and the fact of its publication by Cambridge University Press. It's unclear what they were after other than a general argument by authority -- ID has to be good given that CUP published TDI. The experts rained on that parade pretty well. Like Kevin Padian:

Quote

[433]Q. Mr. Muise, asked you about William Dembski.

[434]A. Yes.

[435]Q. And he asked you about a book that Mr. Dembski published or contributed to.

[436]A. Yes.

[437]Q. What book was that?

[438]A. Is it called the Design of Life? I don't remember the --

[439]Q. And that was published by an academic press?

[440]A. Cambridge.

[441]Q. Cambridge Academic Press?

[442]A. The Design Inference. Thank you.

[443]Q. Is that the same thing as the peer reviewed publications you were discussing this morning?

[444]A. Book publishers, even book publishers of scholarly presses publish a variety of different kinds of books. Some of them are very scholarly, some of them are not so. I happen to be on the board of editors of the University of California Press and I know sometimes they publish biographies or reminiscences or cookbooks or things like that, as well as scholarly books in semiotics and sociology and molecular biology or whatever they happen to do.

So just because it's published by a scholarly press doesn't necessarily tell you what the peer review is. Also, you don't know in a specific instance what kind of understanding authors and editors have about who or how something would be reviewed. If someone who is publishing a book in a scholarly press based on my experience with UC Press and many other presses I have worked with is any indication, and an editor at the book company, the press itself, is an acquisitions editor someone who would like to do business with the press.

And so the first concern is to public books that will be read, that will be good for the press to public, because they'll be discussed, one way or another drum up interest in the press, sell other books by the press. They certainly want to get scholarly works in there and they want to get things as right as they can, but you know, you're serving several masters, whereas in a scholarly journal an editor has a lot of submissions coming in, and he doesn't have to worry about selling journals.

If he does he's probably not running a very good journal because people in his field are going to go for it. So he can hold authors to a standard that says well, look, if the reviewers say that you can do it, and he sends them to anonymous reviewers for this reason. Now, I think something should be pointed out here is maybe Mr. Dembski's book was reviewed by people who know about math and probability theory.

I don't have a dog in that fight. I don't care or know anything about that stuff, but I do know that it's not biology. It wasn't published in a biology series, it has nothing to do with evolution biology, and so when someone said this is a peer reviewed contribution that bears on evolutionary biology, we say where's the beef.

[445]Q. So there's a couple of points there. One is that this academic press is not subject to the same peer review as for instance you described that would occur at Nature or Science?

[446]A. Not necessarily at all, right.

[447]Q. And we don't know what the peer review was for that if any?

[448]A. We don't know. I don't know. I have no personal knowledge.

One of the things we learned from KvD was that a defense of ID largely proceeded as if Dembski's ideas were of peripheral interest -- particular points could be referred to in an attempt to bolster ID's status on authority, but not much more than that. It seems likely to me that any future case that has ID as a point as issue is likely to follow the same pattern. While Behe and Minnich are "damaged goods" based upon their trial testimony, Dembski is likely off any future case's witness list because of the incredible amount of baggage his presence would bring, baggage that became evident through Barbara Forrest's testimony in KvD, baggage that was efficiently dissected in Jeff Shallit's rebuttal report and deposition.

Dembski has good cause for disappointment over KvD, both in his treatment therein as a major player whose conjectures, nonetheless, played only a small role in the case, and in the result that relegated "intelligent design" to history's scrap-heap of ideas.

I just bought Thomas Woodward's Darwin Strikes Back, published last year. In the foreword, Dembski writes this:

Quote

Woodward is optimistic, as am I, about the ultimate outcome of the controversy over ID, and he concludes his careful analysis with some pretty daring predictions. If he is right, we may look forward to a third volume from his hand, one to complete a trilogy on the ID movement that started with Doubts About Darwin and now has issued in Darwin Strikes Back. If he is right, this third volume could appropriately be called The Triumph of Design. But since "Darwin" figures in the titles of previous volumes in the trilogy, he may want to go with something like Darwin's Doddering Idea or Darwinism -- The Senescent Years.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

I just bought Thomas Woodward's Darwin Strikes Back, published last year. In the foreword, Dembski writes this:

Quote

Woodward is optimistic, as am I, about the ultimate outcome of the controversy over ID, and he concludes his careful analysis with some pretty daring predictions. If he is right, we may look forward to a third volume from his hand, one to complete a trilogy on the ID movement that started with Doubts About Darwin and now has issued in Darwin Strikes Back. If he is right, this third volume could appropriately be called The Triumph of Design. But since "Darwin" figures in the titles of previous volumes in the trilogy, he may want to go with something like Darwin's Doddering Idea or Darwinism -- The Senescent Years.

Gee, what was wrong with A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

However, I have every so often seen fundies literally saying that if not for fear of cosmic punishment, they'd be completely amoral, and wouldn't worry about killing or robbing anyone. It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them.

Has anybody else noticed that fundamentalists are always afraid of the temptation of homosexuality?

I almost hate to tell them that heterosexual men are not normally tempted by the idea of sex with males. In fact, it's much more of an "ick!" than anything else.

What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

When I'm faced with people who tell me that atheists are all immoral, evil, baby-raping, homosexual murderers* (I think that's a direct quote), my response is something like: "Really? Are you seriously telling me that you cannot think of a single reason not to do all those things, other than that God tells you not to? That if you were to have a crisis of faith tomorrow, you'd be killing, stealing and raping before the day was out?"

If they say "Well... No. I suppose not..." then we can start a dialogue on the subject of ethics, and whether or not Christians really are better people.

If they say "Yes, that's exactly what I mean" (and it has happened), I back away slowly, being sure not to make any sudden movements.

* "homosexual murderers" does not mean "people who murder homosexuals", which is apparently OK.

The UD crowd are egging on "Dr" Dembski to get back into courtkairosfocus

Quote

if one can be identified as a target of defamatory remarks, one has a right to sue, whether or not the identification was “intentional.” For the underlying point of a tort is “negect of a duty of care.”

...

Quote

Until and unless Professor Miller, Professor Forrest, Judge Jones, et al fairly and frankly face such, they are guilty of misleading he public and slandering the ID’s leading spokesmen through neglect of duties of care. (Were I Mr Demsski, I would be looking up a good Barrister in the UK, preferably a QC. At minimum, IMHCO, a correctibve Lawyer’s letter to the BBC, cc Mr Miller and also relevant overseeing powers in Parliament, is warranted.)

tribune7 adds

Quote

kariosfocust, great post!!!!

Dr. Dembski, it wouldn’t hurt to make a phone call to some U.K. law firm specializing in libel/slander and see if you got a case to make the BBC correct the record.

Yeah, wouldn't hurt to make a phone call, wouldn't hurt to do some actual science either. And yet somehow I doubt either will happen, although I'd love nothing more then to see Dembski v Miller in court in the UK. Dembski just don't get it. All mouth, no trousers. It's fine to challenge people to debates when you know they won't accept, it's fine to mouth off that Miller slandered you when you know that you'll do nothing about it then write about it on a blog. ID don't need your peer-review, it's got cheesy-poof review! The mobile command center is at Dr Dembski's disposal! Why not make use of it Dr Dembski? Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr.

EDIT: LOL! If you follow the link to kairosfocus website here there's a load of blah (including why Jones was wrong!) but there's also the classic line

Quote

no claim is made for absolute truth, and corrections based on factual errors and/or gaps or inconsistencies in reasoning, etc., or typos, are welcome.

...

Quote

Permission is therefore granted to link to this page for fair use under intellectual property law, and for reasonable fair use citation of the linked content on this site for church- or parachurch- group related training and/or for personal or specifically institutional academic use. [But kindly have mercy on the available bandwidth at a freebie site . . . ask me to use the page whole or make significant excerpts on your own site as appropriate . . .] This permission specifically excludes reproduction, linking or citation for commercial, controversial or media purposes without the Author's written permission -- especialy where matters relating to the validity and value of Faith/Religious/Atheological Commitments and Truth-Claims are being debated or disputed.

No linking to without permission? Obviously there's a deep misunderstanding of how teh internets work! You don't need permission to link! Seeya in court buddy boy!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Dembski's original attack upon Kenneth Miller was premised upon the the accusation that Miller misrepresented Dembski's notion of CSI in the BBC program. Miller discussed ID's treatment of highly improbable events (through the example of one's misplaced retrospective amazement over a particular set of hands of cards dealt in a particular order) without addressing the "specification" fork of the concept of CSI. In doing so Miller distorted Dembski's position and set up a straw man in its stead. Similarly, a calculation of the probability of (for example) a flagellum spontaneously self-assmbling is beside the point, because it leaves out specification. This is evidence of the collapse of Ken Miller's psyche.

Miller responded that this impression results from the BBC's unfortunate editing, which suggested that he had been discussing Dembski's mathematical notions when he was not. In response WAD issued a petulant apology.

What has been lost in the ensuing discussion is that Dembski himself has characterized the flagellum as a "combinatorial object" and has discussed the overwhelming improbability of its chance self-assembly in the absence of reference to specification. He does this in NFL as he addresses himself to the relationship of Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity to his own notion of Complex Specified Information. Miller's playing card analogy is exactly relevant to this discussion, because for the moment Dembski proceeds without relying upon specification, as specification is absent from Behe's IC.

This was underscored by Howard Van Till in his review of Dembski's "No Free Lunch," and resulted in an exchange between Van Till and Dembski that Dembski seems to have forgotten:

So, then, we are asked to imagine a bacterial flagellum arising from the pure chance gathering of approximately 50 of the right kinds of proteins (and in the correct proportions) at some spot in the vicinity of the cell wall and plasma membrane of E. coli and then, again by chance, happening to configure themselves into a functioning rotary propulsion system for this bacterial cell.Not surprisingly, Dembski’s computations and estimations of the three probability factors lead him firmly to the expected conclusion: Considered as a discrete combinatorial object that must self-assemble from the chance localization of the requisite, chance-assembled molecular components, the probability of a flagellum assembling itself and attaching itself to the cell membrane of E. coli is exceedingly small in comparison to the universal probability bound. By Dembski’s measure, it is demonstrable beyond any shadow of doubt that bacterial flagella cannot self-assemble as discrete combinatorial objects....But, of course, no biologist has ever taken the bacterial flagellum to be a discrete combinatorial object that self-assembled in the manner described by Dembski. Dembski has not defeated any actual biological proposition. He has slain nothing more than an imaginary dragon - a fictitious adversary that Dembski himself has fabricated from a stack of rhetorical straw.

Dembski responded to Van Till's discussion, and therein restated his representation of the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object:

Quote

Van Till has a problem with my characterization of the bacterial flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object. Nonetheless, that's what it is. Moreover, the probability I describe for such objects, which decomposes into a product of an origination, localization, and configuration probability, does in fact constitute the probability for such objects. That decomposition holds with perfect generality and does not presuppose any independence or equiprobability assumptions. Now, how one assigns those probabilities and sorts through the different possible estimates of them is another matter. Thus, for Van Till to remark that "no biologist has ever taken the bacterial flagellum to be a discrete combinatorial object that self-assembled in the manner described by Dembski" is besides the point. The bacterial flagellum is indeed a discrete combinatorial object, and the self-assembly that I describe is the one we are left with and can compute on the basis of what we know. The only reason biologists would refuse to countenance my description and probabilistic calculations of self-assembly is because they show that only an indirect Darwinian pathway could have produced the bacterial flagellum. But precisely because it is indirect, there is, at least for now, no causal specificity and no probability to be calculated. Design theorists are closing off possible mechanistic routes for biological evolution. Van Till's biologists, by contrast, handwave at mere conceptual possibilities.

“Van Till has a problem with my characterization of the bacterial flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object.” Not so. Dembski here conveniently left off the essential qualification of my objection. What I actually said was, “But, of course, no biologist has ever taken the bacterial flagellum to be a discrete combinatorial object that self-assembled in the manner described by Dembski.” Dembski is free to call the flagellum a “discrete combinatorial object” if he wishes. But to then declare that it makes any sense whatsoever to think of it as something that self- assembled by pure chance is, I think, pure silliness. Feigning to compute the probability of such an “event” struck me as little more than an exercise in academic histrionics.

In short, although Miller was not, apparently, addressing himself to any of Dembski's arguments in the BBC special, and certainly not during his Doverloo testimony, his criticisms would have been appropriate to Dembski's argument vis the flagellum as combintorial object in NFL, which was restated in this exchange, if he had.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

In short, although Miller was not, apparently, addressing himself to any of Dembski's arguments in the BBC special, and certainly not during his Doverloo testimony, his criticisms would have been appropriate to Dembski's argument vis the flagellum as combintorial object in NFL, which were again restated in this exchange, if he had.

Further to this, Mr Miller either knows, or should know based on duty to do due diligence, that he consistently severely misrepresents the inference to complex, specified information... if a microstate or clustrer of microstatesis both hihgly improbable and functionally specified, it is not at all likely to be reached by chance.

No one claims that organisms arose by chance alone. That is the strawman that underlies Dembski's argument.

The classic examples are things like finding 500 coins, all heads-up...

Um, then Miller was properly representing the argument as one of pure combinatorial chance. (Atoms will align themselves in just such a manner. They're called crystals. If you magnetize coins, they also align.)

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

That's exactly what many of them say. It speaks volumes that they'd apparently be much happier if all atheists were amoral monsters.

It must be hard to be God's people but come across as less moral and see the others acting well without living in divine fear.

Yeah, it must really seem like atheists are getting free milk without buying the cow, as it were.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

The classic examples are things like finding 500 coins, all heads-up...

Um, then Miller was properly representing the argument as one of pure combinatorial chance. (Atoms will align themselves in just such a manner. They're called crystals. If you magnetize coins, they also align.)

yeah, that just shows you how far away from reality Kairo really is. ID ain't done so well in courts of law recently. For further proof, check out his website! The inanity knows no bounds!

Sue them for what anyway, exactly? Telling the truth? Even if the editing left something to be desired then ID would presumably have to prove itself in court (otherwise Miller wins by default! If Dembski was to sue, he'd have to prove ID was right!) or Miller is right by default! And we know that is not going to happen!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

DaveScot said... Curious about what school district in their right mind would include a book on family illustrating a homo household for students only five years old I googled Lexington "David Park" and found it was Lexington, Massachusetts. Figures. I wonder if the parent can get a fair trial in that homo haven where the jury won't be a jury of peers but rather a jury of queers. ROFLMAO - I crack me up. Am I allowed to use the word "queer" here or is calling a poofter a queer considered name-calling?

Dave, here's clue from yer old pal, Dave. Uncommon Descent is a private blog not a public school. Just so you know, freedom of speech doesn't apply in private settings. For instance, if someone is invited to your home and you don't like what they have to say you uninvite them and that's perfectly okay. Is there any part of that you don't understand?

7:05 AM

DaveScot said... Dave asks "What's a Darwinist?"

A Darwinist is someone like Lynn Margulis according to Lynn Margulis who called herself a Darwinist when delivering the keynote speech at the 2005 "Woodstock of Evolution" held in the Galapagos.

Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, "This is the most wonderful conference I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of conferences." She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." But, she quickly added, "I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point."